Clinton counters a Sanders' political ad with whataboutism.
In an interview just before the 2016 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton addressed insinuations from her opponent, Bernie Sanders, that she took too much money from Wall Street to hold Wall Street accountable. When asked to respond, Clinton said, "I mean basically, it's also a very direct criticism of President Obama, who as you might recall took a lot of money from the financial industry when he ran in 2008. That didn't stop him from fighting for the hardest regulations on Wall Street..."
A few weeks later, on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Clinton hit back again at Sanders, this time more directly, stating, "Senator Sanders took about $200,000 from Wall Street firms, not directly but through the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. You know, there is nothing wrong with that".[1]
Clinton's rhetorical counter in both scenarios is a form of ad hominem
- attacking the character or motive of the person making an argument, rather than attacking the argument itself.
commonly known as whataboutism. The technique is a logical fallacy which deflects criticism by suggesting any notion of hypocrisy renders the criticism null and void. By its design, Clinton never directly disputes the criticism but instead diverts the focus away from her taking money from Wall Street to "all democrats" taking money from Wall Street. As Clinton demonstrates, the charge of hypocrisy doesn't have to be directed back at the critic but can be assigned to anyone that might be guilty of the same offense.
Whataboutism relies on false equivalency - implying that two things are essentially the same, when they only have anecdotal similarities.
. Clinton tries to equivocate her and her husband's combined personal earnings of 7.7 million dollars from doing paid speeches with Obama and Sanders' campaign contributions.[2] Regarding Sanders, the false equivalency is even more disingenuous since only 8% of the Sanders' "$200,000" came from Wall Street money.[3]
Whataboutism also relies on false dichotomy - giving the impression that there are only two opposing choices or options, while ignoring any middle ground exists between the two extremes.
, in that it hinges on the misconception that one can't be concerned about the original issue AND the one whatabouted into the conversation. Even when the whataboutism introduces a valid equivalence, the new offense doesn't negate the original offense.
That is not to say that calling out hypocrisy is always whataboutism. Disregarding an argument solely based on it being labeled a "whataboutism" runs the risk of making the term a thought-terminating cliché.[4] If the whataboutism does indeed introduce a valid equivalence, one must then ask how relevant the equivalence is.
For instance, during the Cuban Missile crisis when the USSR started placing nuclear missiles within striking distance of the U.S., the Soviets justified their actions pointing to installations of nuclear missiles the U.S. had placed in Eastern Europe within striking distance of the USSR.[5] In this case, the equivalence was both valid and relevant. In Clinton's case, even if other politicians had taken lots of money from Wall Street, it does not justify her doing so.
And therein lies the logical flaw in whataboutism - it always fails to make the original accusation any less true. Its primary function is to serve as a diversion to turn the debate away from the issue at hand into a battle over which offender is worse. It thrives on the assumption that one party can’t be wrong if the other isn’t right. And in doing so, it makes both parties involved more focused on pointing out the hypocrisy of the other side than engaging with the original argument, which is precisely the point.
